Demonic Baby-Killing Fanaticism

 “[T]hey’re protesting our lives somehow being protected.” – Abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden 

With the Supreme Court allegedly on the brink of overturning the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion that held that murdering babies was legit and legal, abortion advocates are losing their collective minds in a stunning show of what can only be termed demonic fanaticism. Think of it, thousands of people are belligerently bull horning in the streets and threatening violence, arson, and revolution because they believe their ability to terminate the lives of babies will be curtailed. How is this anything but demonic?

One dictionary defines “demonic” as “of, relating to, or suggestive of a demon: fiendish.” Another says that “demonic” means “wild and evil” and lists the following as related terms: abhorrent; amoral; antichrist; obscene; outrageous; unconscionable; unethical; and unprincipled. All of the above apply to the desperate, militant, breathless baby-killers parading in the streets. To them, sacrificing babies is akin to a religious ritual. 

This is not hyperbole. Numerous groups and activists, from Planned Parenthood to The Satanic Temple, have argued that banning abortion would violate their First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of religion. In an article last September titled “How the Satanic Temple is using ‘abortion rituals’ to claim religious liberty against the Texas’ ‘heartbeat bill’,” the rationale of this perverse argument is explained: 

“The Satanic Temple began in 2013 and has launched a number of political actions and lawsuits related to the separation of church and state. Texas is home to four congregations of The Satanic Temple, more than any other state. . . . 

“The Satanic Temple’s seven tenets include the belief that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” It interprets state restrictions on abortion access as a burden on this sincerely held religious belief. 

“In 2015, The Satanic Temple began a series of lawsuits against the state of Missouri, where women seeking abortions must view sonograms and then review a booklet stating, “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.” After this, the women must spend 72 hours considering their decision before finally receiving an abortion. 

“The Satanic Temple argued that this practice was an unconstitutional effort by the state to impose its religious views onto vulnerable women. Furthermore, it claimed that under Missouri’s RFRA law, Satanic women could not be forced to comply with these procedures. Instead of answering whether RFRA protected members of The Satanic Temple from abortion restrictions, the court dismissed these cases on procedural grounds. 

Twisted logic from The Satanic Temple

“The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that . . . [the woman] . . . had no legal standing to sue. The Satanic Temple appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear it. 

“To prevent similar rulings, ministers for The Satanic Temple created an “abortion ritual,” in which a woman affirms her own autonomy, obtains an abortion, and then concludes the ritual. 

“Since abortion is part of the ritual, The Satanic Temple argues, subjecting a woman to a waiting period is akin to the government interfering with a baptism or communion.” 

The Satanic Temple is perhaps an extreme example of abortion advocacy, yet they are one of the foremost organizations using this argument of “religious Liberty,” so they are fair game. There is nothing quite like quoting straight from the horse’s mouth, though, and so I turn to the group’s own words. The Satanic Temple issued a deliberately chilling video proclamation in which they stated the religious character of baby slaughter: 

“The Satanic Temple’s rituals adhere to our tenets which value science and assert bodily autonomy. As an expression of our deeply held beliefs, The Satanic Temple has created a religious ritual which involves terminating an unwanted pregnancy during the first trimester. The religious abortion ritual involves the recitation of our third and fifth tenets, along with a personal affirmation during the abortion procedure. The ritual provides spiritual comfort and affirms bodily autonomy and self-worth. The Satanic Temple proudly announces to all of its followers that within the states that have enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act religiously performed abortions are exempt from legal requirements that are not medically necessary . . . Thyself is thy master. Hail Satan!” 

“Bodily autonomy” is a curious phrase. Does your “autonomy” apply to another person? Does your “autonomy” give you the right to decide life and death for another human being? If not, then how can a mother be said to have “autonomy” over the body of the baby inside her? Wouldn’t the very concept of “bodily autonomy” protect the unborn and prevent their mothers from ending their lives by interfering with their bodily autonomy? 

And isn’t it intriguing that these Satanists who claim to be pro-science actually deny science by ignoring the scientific verity that babies are living human beings from conception? But these facts are inconvenient. After all, “thyself” is your only god. Well, except Satan, of course. 

Apart from these self-avowed Satanists, the abortion protestors, media talking heads, and Establishment types who are losing their minds, are behaving like literal demons. Some of the asinine things said thus far by commentators include the following. 

Joy Reid of MSNBC said

“The Christian nationalist right is building Gilead in America and the Supreme Court is their deliberately, relentlessly, Federalist Society, Bush, Trump, McConnell-created weapon. And this is just the start. Buckle up women, LGBTQ people and people of color. We’re all on the menu.” 

This is unhinged frothing at the mouth that is incoherent and false. Firstly, to claim Bush and McConnell are on the same team as Trump is laughable at best. Second, how can the Supreme Court be said to be “right,” let alone “nationalist”? Third, what could possibly draw a connection between defending the lives of innocent babies and going after women, gays, and black racialists? These types of two-bit commentators are spewing anything in hopes that something will stick. 

A Vanity Fair writer, Cristian Farias, ranted

“In American law, that’s all it takes to renege and turn the clock back on nearly 50 years of precedent. In this light, the leak months in advance of Roe’s formal demise shouldn’t be a surprise, but confirmation that the Republican-captured Supreme Court is a political institution that responds to the vicissitudes of the electorate. Trump himself told us so when he predicted, quite presciently, that his appointments to the court as president would overturn Roe “automatically.” People laughed at Trump for this procedural imprecision at the time—no precedent can be wiped out in the blink of an eye. But not so those voters who placed their faith in him and were perhaps willing to turn a blind eye to his racism, misogyny, and overall unfitness for office so that he may deliver for them “two or perhaps three justices” who would bring an end to what they believe is the intentional murder of preborn life. Promises made, promises kept. 

“With this reactionary majority locked down, the writing in the Alito draft was already on the wall. He is part of the same five-justice bloc, minus Roberts, that for the past eight months has not lifted a finger to stop Texas and other states from unleashing their own residents on people needing abortion care in their borders—effectively ending access for many people and forcing thousands to cross state lines to seek abortion and other reproductive health care. The justices’ antipathy toward abortion in the Texas case—as well as the expected end of Roe in Mississippi—has already created a free-for-all where almost all abortion restrictions are on the table. When Alito says that the issue of abortion can now return to the states, what he’s really signaling to the antiabortion faithful is that this may not be a state issue at all—but a brave new world where everything from out-of-state vigilantism to restrictions on mail-order medication abortion can be legalized. And why not, maybe even a national ban is in the offing. 

“We don’t have to wait until late June, when the final edict on Roe is expected, for that reality to take hold. That future is now. The only question is what, if anything, those who are reading and dissecting the Supreme Court’s draft opinion can do today to blunt the trauma and uncertainty five justices are already inflicting on the millions of people who have ordered their lives around the idea of reproductive freedom.” 

How sad is it that, like Cain who murdered Able and rejoiced that he was “free” (Moses 5:33), these baby-killers find “freedom” in murder! Notice how this writer hits many of the usual talking points: Trump’s so-called “racism” and “misogyny;” the claim Trump broke laws; the cry of anti-abortion “vigilantism;” the idea of Republican bias; the decades’ old refrain that Republicans are hurting and traumatizing “millions” of people unjustly; the well-worn socialist idea that the American electorate is too stupid to know what’s good for them; etc. 

Less eloquently, but every bit as stupidly, Ian Millhiser of Vox Tweeted various insane and incoherent things such as:  

“Seriously, shout out to whoever the hero within the Supreme Court who said ‘f*ck it! Let’s burn this place down.” 

“The Supreme Court is one of the most malignant institutions in American history.” 

“It seems wrong that Donald Trump tried to overthrow the United States government, and we just let the people he placed on the bench continue to make decisions that bind the government Trump failed to unlawfully remove.” 

“One fun fact about the Supreme Court is that a third of its members were appointed by a professional con man who received nearly 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton, and then tried to stage a coup.” 

“If I were a right-wing bot whose goal was to undermine liberal democracy in the United States and ensure that fascism prevails, all of my tweets today would be about how no one should vote for Democrats because they haven’t done enough to protect abortion rights.” 

“The draft Roe opinion appears to be as bad as expected, but I’m glad it leaked because this leak will foster anger and distrust within the irredeemable institution that is the Supreme Court of the United States.” 

The only statement here with any merit is the second one. But isn’t it interesting that this shrill leftist only condemns the Supreme Court when it tries to take away his ability to murder babies? “How dare they protect babies! Let’s burn this place down!” That’s the mentality of these savage abortion sycophants. 

Finally, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s lead legal expert, gave the following historically-ignorant observation

“What this means is that a constitutional right that women have had in this country for 50 years, pushing three generations, is gone. It is gone overnight and it is now up to the politicians and this idea that it is simply returning the abortion rights to the states is not really correct because what we are seeing in these states that are banning abortion is they are reaching out, they are trying to ban abortion in the whole country.” 

What, pray tell, is a “constitutional right”? There are either natural, or God-given, rights, or none at all. Government can’t bestow rights. The Constitution doesn’t give them. Rights don’t come from dusty documents. In fact, the Constitution came into existence to protect the rights over which the War for Independence was fought

You’ll recall at least some of these sacred rights if you remember Thomas Jefferson’s immortal pronouncement: 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

How can something be a “constitutional right” if it denies and contradicts the Declaration of Independence? The Declaration clearly says that life is one of our unalienable rights. So is the ability to pursue one’s own happiness in an atmosphere of Freedom. None of this is possible if you rob a person of his or her life and chance for progression. Killing a baby is killing his rights – the very rights that America was founded on. 

Not only did the liberal media flare up, but the streets erupted so suddenly you may be forgiven if you thought the protest was pre-planned. Hundreds of protestors showed up at the Supreme Court building with their corny and unoriginal slogans on signs, chanting their sing-song Marxist phrases and demanding their so-called “right” to kill babies. Five of the slogans I have seen so far in videos and photos said: 

“My body, my choice.” 
“Hands off our uteruses.” 
“Against abortion? Get a vasectomy.” 
“Women’s bodies are more regulated than guns.” 
“Doctors not doctrine.” 

One wonders if these people have ever stopped to ponder the real meanings of their signs. The answer must be a resounding “no,” for, if they had, and they possessed any sense of honor, they would have never appeared in public holding them. Let’s look at each of these mentioned above. 

Demonic fanaticism on full display

First is “my body, my choice.” This is the fundamental cry of pro-abortion advocates. They utter it as if it has any logical leg to stand on or as if it conveys any sense of morality, justice, and uprightness. It has become something of a religious mantra, repeated mindlessly ad nauseum. Sadly for the baby-butchers, this is the easiest trope to trounce. 

The idea “my body, my choice” is only valid if we are talking about only one body. If only a single, lone body is involved, perhaps we can sit down and have a discussion. However, abortion obviously involves more than one body. In fact, the act involves not one, not two, but three individuals and two bodies. 

The three individuals are the mother, father, and baby. Feminist and abortion advocates screech about “equality,” yet seek to deny men the right to have an equal say as to whether their children – their flesh and blood – are allowed to live. Where’s the equality in that? If equality was factored in, women would not have a monopoly on deciding what happens to a child which, despite sharing her womb for a short period of time, is not her exclusive property or purview, but which is the shared responsibility of the father. 

As for the bodies, you can’t honestly repeat “my body, my choice” and have anyone over the age of 2 buy it. Everyone knows that the body of a separate individual – a small baby, yet a person with all the potential and possibilities that the rest of us have – is involved besides, separate, and apart from the mother’s body. The distinction between the mother’s and baby’s bodies was perhaps explained best by famed heart surgeon and religious leader President Russell M. Nelson: 

“When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.” 

He further stated that: 

“Nearly all legislation pertaining to abortion considers the duration of gestation. The human mind has presumed to determine when “meaningful life” begins. In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins. To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion.” 

Biologically, scientifically, medically, life begins at conception. That is not debatable. The science really is settled on this matter. There is no other point at which learned men can identify the first flicker of life other than at that first joining of sperm and egg. Scripturally, life begins long before conception, but that is a matter slightly beyond our present scope. 

As President, or, if you prefer, Doctor, Nelson said, abortion involves two bodies, two lives, two hearts, two heartbeats, two brains, two sets of organs, two sets of hands and feet, two unique blood types, two unique sets of finger prints, four eyes, two mouths, two heads, two spinal cords, two skeletons, and so forth. It is a bastardization of science, medicine, and reality to claim “my body, my choice.” 

Woman, had your choice before you engaged in intercourse. You chose to use your body to perform an act that naturally, intentionally, and by design, creates life and brings another separate body into the world. Before this new body – a new human being – “comes into the world,” however, it inhabits your body for a brief time. Yet, it is another’s body nonetheless. 

Please note, this new little body is not your body; it is your child’s body. And you have no right, no autonomy, and no sovereignty over it. Your choice was made when you chose to have sex. Your right to choose the consequence of that action ended then and there and makes your pithy slogan a ludicrous, hollow, and juvenile mockery of reality. 

The next slogan is equally idiotic. Whose hands are on your uterus? Who is controlling your sex life? Are you so enslaved and servile that you are not the one in charge of your own sex drive and sex life? If you have the power to control whom you have sex with, you have the power to prevent “unwanted pregnancies” as well as abortion and the resultant conflict. Instead of chiding others for supposedly controlling your uterus, might I suggest learning a little self-control and getting ahold of your own sex drive and regulating who you have sex with – ideally a husband with whom you are wedded in conformity with God’s laws. 

Slogan number three implies that only men oppose abortion and that it is men alone who can’t control themselves. As just noted, women have their own agency and have a right to say “no.” They don’t have to sleep with anyone – especially if they are not prepared to bear the responsibilities of motherhood that could likely result.  

Furthermore, why should men have to get a vasectomy because women want to shirk their motherhood responsibilities? How does murdering your own offspring give you the right to control another person’s ability to procreate? Wouldn’t that contradict the other two slogans talked about already? And wouldn’t it be equally as easy for a woman to undergo an operation to prevent herself from having kids as for a man to endure one? While both options are immoral and unnecessary, it seems far worse to take a life than to tie your tubes or exercise sexual self-restraint. 

The fourth slogan is patently absurd and uncategorically false. Felons, for instance, can’t have guns, yet they can have sex, get abortions, etc. You can’t buy a gun without jumping through bureaucratic hoops ranging from background checks to delay periods. Are there such government checks for women before they have intercourse? Are women prevented from entering banks, stadiums, schools, and other such places that armed individuals are often prohibited from? You can’t legally use a gun to kill people for no other reason than that you didn’t want them around anymore, yet a woman can legally kill her unborn child simply because she wants to. This non-comparison between women and guns is not only poorly thought out, but utterly non-existent. 

The fifth and final slogan has already been refuted. Doctors – who supposedly follow the science – are bound to admit the personhood of unborn babies, that they are alive from conception, and that killing them is killing a unique, individual, living boy or girl. Yet, regardless of what doctors say, it really should be about doctrine. God’s commands should prevail in our lives. Even if we disregard God, however, we still have to deal with the Declaration of Independence which upholds our right to life. Roe v. Wade is an explicit violation of the Declaration of Independence and is blatantly anti-American. 

The protestors at the Supreme Court building are more than logically flawed. They are also frothing at the mouth with demonic rage. Fulcrum7 published an aptly-titled article “Vicious Crowd At Supreme Court Protesting For Abortion With Demonic Influences.” In it, the author painted an excellent picture of the madness and malevolence of the pro-abortion protestors: 

“I could hear the massive crowds chanting and screaming as I walked up Capitol Hill to the Supreme Court. Strident chants of “my body, my choice” and “abortion is healthcare” rang out into the beautiful spring evening. . . . 

“Abortion protests are not uncommon in Washington, D.C. . . . . 

“But tonight was different. A Monday evening report from POLITICO revealed that Roe v. Wade is most likely about to be overturned, and the anger and desperation from pro-abortion rights activists was palpable. . . . 

“The crowd seemed to be almost entirely made up of pro-abortion protesters. The only pro-life group that I encountered was the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU). . . . 

““Abortion is murder,” the small knot of PAAU members chanted into megaphones, completely surrounded by pro-abortion rights protesters screaming curse words at them. 

“I pushed my way through the crowd until I could see and film what was going on. One girl dressed in denim while sporting both a mask and sunglasses flung water at the PAAU members. It splashed a man next to me, who looked annoyed and surprised. 

““*** you, *** you!” screamed another masked woman, waving her middle finger at the pro-life activists. Two lanky young men followed her example, aggressively thrusting middle fingers toward the PAAU members and screaming, “*** you, *** you!” 

“Their eyes were wild with rage, and for a moment I wondered if they would assault the PAAU members. It seemed surreal to see these very typical-looking Washington, D.C., men behaving in such a manner in broad daylight. . . . 

“Amid the angry noise, I surveyed the teeming horde of pro-abortion rights protesters, filming them to capture their hostile passion. 

“One young woman in a red crop top was chanting, her eyes half closed as if in a trance, “I will not be subjugated! I will not be subjugated!” Her face and body were covered in paint and hand prints. . . . 

““Whose streets?” asked a woman with a megaphone. “Our streets!” the protestors responded. . . . 

“The megaphone sirens continued to wail above the crowd as they moved in closer toward Hurley, who proclaimed his faith in God. 

““I don’t believe in your Jesus. Your Jesus isn’t real. F*** your Jesus, f*** your Jesus,” screamed the large black woman in green with the megaphone. “Christ is not here, baby, I’m right here, and right here today, I can get an abortion. I can get an abortion.” 

““Pack it up,” she told him repeatedly. “You are actively trying to take away my rights as a woman. You do not have the right to say what I can do with my body. That’s not your choice. We do not believe in the same thing!” . . . . 

““Where’s your God now?” jeered a man close to my shoulder. I turned and stared at him, shocked by his malicious tone.” 

Read the full article for more of this tale. This is just a small taste. The people on the ground right now are malevolent, frothing maniacs. They are unmasked – everyone now knows how desperately they desire to murder babies and end human life. Rule of law doesn’t matter to them. They have come to believe that might makes right and they are willing to use their might to force the matter. 

What is this other than mob mentality? We are dealing with a group of radical, enraged baby-killers – people who would burn down the government for their “right” to end human life. When you are so past feeling, no atrocity is off limits in your mad dash to get your way and be on top. 

If the Supreme Court goes through with their present decision to essentially overturn Roe and kick the issue to the states (it is not a state issue, as I will discuss in an upcoming article), the Marxians among us will riot. Even if they don’t actively burn down cities a la Antifa and BLM, their rage will be palpable. And how sad is it that such rage can be engendered by a ban on infanticide! 

At times, fortunately, abortions go awry and the would-be-human-sacrifice survives. Such was the case of Melissa Ohden. You can read about her story here. The takeaway is the insight she shares regarding how an abortion survivor feels – the terrible emotional toll of abortion. She explained her feelings this way: 

“I felt ashamed. I was embarrassed to have survived an abortion. . . . 

“I must not be loved. . . . 

“There is this little piece of us that feels like we are so unworthy, that we are so broken, that there’s no way anybody would love us if they actually knew who we were. . . . 

“[abortion advocates are] protesting our lives somehow being protected.” 

How can anyone look at a testimony like this and try to deny that a human being – not a mere clump of cells – is involved in the dastardly act of abortion? The little boy or girl being terminated has a brain that, with a little time and training, can compute numbers, create masterpieces, reason, debate, and so many other wonders. He or she has a heart that can feel love and hate, compassion and callousness, joy and sadness, ecstasy and pain. All the rationalizing aside, he or she, like Melissa Ohden, is a real person with a real right to life. 

It must be draining to realize that your mother, the one who is supposed to love and care for you above all others, attempted to kill you, end your life, and snuff out your existence. Yet, despite these types of sentiments from survivors like Melissa, the protestors still protest with their selfish slogans “my body, my choice,” never stopping to think of the special, unique, amazing, hope-filled, Heaven-sent children they are destroying. 

This brings us back one last time to the present as millions are up in arms about the leaked information regarding the Supreme Court’s possible overturning of Roe v. Wade. These people, so unfeeling, so unthinking, so heartless, are enraged that anyone would dare prevent them from murdering children. More to the point, they are catatonic thinking that they might not be able to fornicate at will. 

These amoral people want to be able to sleep around with impunity. They want to rid themselves of responsibility. They want to shirk adulthood, fatherhood, motherhood, and real life. They want to remain promiscuous whoremongers whose only thought is selfish pleasure and hedonistic living. Doing away with the ability to get rid of “unwanted” pregnancies, then, is an imperative in their listless worldview. 

“But,” you cry, “not all people pursue abortions because they want to. Some of them are victims of rape, incest, or medical problems!” You are correct. However, less than 1% of abortions fall into these tragic categories and, you may be surprised, I would allow for some abortions under certain carefully-define circumstances in these given situations. The other 99% are medically and morally unnecessary. They are called “elective” abortions for a reason, the very word implying choice and free will. But is abortion the only choice? No! 

Truly, women have a choice. In the first place, they don’t need to have sex until they are ready to care for and raise a child. They choose to procreate. Men and women are not evolved beasts ruled by instinct and impulse. We don’t go into heat and have to mate with the first person of the opposite sex that comes our way. That is a nihilistic, Marxian, Darwinist viewpoint. Instead, we are created, intelligent beings with reason, agency, and free will. Humans are smart enough to know from a very young age that the act of procreation produces children. And they are endowed with sufficient Freedom of choice to choose self-control. 

Second, women don’t need to terminate the pregnancy – they simply want to avoid responsibility. If they truly can’t cope with the responsibilities of motherhood, and their partner can’t handle being a father, there are adoption agencies ready and willing to help. There are millions who want children but, for one reason or another, cannot have them. Women who don’t want children could give so much joy to other women who do want them by giving their children in adoption. That is the humane, human, healthy choice. 

Those who are crying for abortion are wild and savage like animals which devour their young. They either don’t understand how horrific abortion is or simply don’t care. They clearly have never watched videos or seen pictures of poor bloodied babies ripped into pieces by abortionists. If they have seen these images and yet still support this barbarity, their hearts are hard and cold. They also obviously ignore the science which confirms beyond any doubt that babies in the womb sense the abortion before it happens and feel the extreme pain inflicted upon their tiny bodies, minds, and souls. 

How can people do this to their young? How can civilized people advocate it? It is barbarism! It is demonic! It is evil! We sometimes think of the ancient Hebrews throwing their children into the flames of the false god Moloch as a horror and atrocity. And that it is. Yet, how is it any worse than the manner, scale, and scope of modern infanticide? Does the fact that it happens at a “clinic” really make it any better? 

At least 70 million unborn babies have been slaughtered in abortion clinics in the United States since Roe v. Wade was foisted upon us in 1973. It constitutes one of the greatest massacres in human history, rivaling, even surpassing, the obscenely high number butchered by Lenin, Stalin, and the Soviet dictators. People condemn Hitler’s almost entirely exaggerated and overly-hyped “Holocaust” of some 6 million, yet they don’t bat an eye at the 70 million very real babies holocausted by Planned Parenthood and its co-conspirators (the real “Holocaust” death toll is probably around 150,000 from all causes, even according to many Jewish historians like Yad Vashem’s Shmuel Krakowsky and professional archivists at Auschwitz. Auschwitz’s resident experts have in fact been forced by pesky facts to formally reduce the alleged toll from 4 to a still high 1 million. The scholarly Holocaust Handbook series of books published by The Barnes Review is a must-read on the subject). 

The people who control the narrative in the media, Hollywood, and academia play up their favorite historical boogeymen, yet ignore, downplay, or openly defend, the abortion genocide that has eliminated generations of unborn Americans, to say nothing of countless millions of Russians, Chinese, and Indians. These same gatekeepers perhaps aren’t aware that their ideological forbears in the Soviet Union were the first to legalize abortion. If you didn’t know it already, now you know that abortion-on-demand came from Soviet Russia and was part of the communist strategy to Sovietize and subjugate a nation. 

And, yet again, as we invoke the communists as the godfathers of modern infanticide, we realize how demonic the abortion movement is. This is a mass movement spawned by the greatest mass murderers in history. This is a movement of proud anti-Christs. It is a movement of hedonists, selfish sexual deviants, political hacks, leftists, anarchists, avowed Satanists, adults with arrested development, and disturbed people with blood on their hands. 

While it is true that some good women have been bullied or, at times, forced, into having abortions, or were young and desperate enough to not truly be cognizant of the enormity of their crimes, these are exceptions. The majority of those who march in the street, wave banners, and occupy the Supreme Court, are people like I have described – people who seem possessed with a demonic zeal for baby-murder. 

To these individuals, however, there is a remedy. The remedy is repentance. While the Lord does not wink at sin and pat the unrepentant on the back, He is willing to forgive the penitent soul. It is hard to repent of murder, and things so very like it, such as abortion, but the Lord would say to those guilty of such heinous deeds the same thing He said to the woman taken in adultery: “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:1-12). If one heeds the invitation, reforms his or her life according to Gospel covenants, and sincerely tries to follow the Lord, repentance is possible. No one is destined for hell – Heaven is a possibility in every human being’s future because of the Redemption of Jesus Christ. 

It is historic moments like the one we are witnessing unfold at the Supreme Court that give us all a chance to reflect and to adjust course. If we find ourselves astray, we can change. It’s not too late. If we find ourselves on the right side, we can redouble our efforts and work to bring about much good and to be a light to the world. I challenge you to firmly root yourself in Gospel soil, rejecting baby slaughter and demonic infanticide, protecting the God-given rights of every person born or unborn, and standing up for what is right even when it is unpopular, politically incorrect, and difficult. 

Zack Strong, 
May 4, 2022 

Read my other articles on abortion, global genocide, and the miracle of life here: 

Moloch’s Modern Children” 

Abortionism – Cult of Death” 

Past Feeling” 

Death of the Irish” 

Zero Population” 

Enough and to Spare” 

The Miracle of Life

Judge Kavanaugh – A Missed Opportunity

I have been asked why I think President Trump’s nomination for the next justice of the Supreme Court is a terrible choice. This brief article will highlight the reasons why Judge Brett Kavanaugh is an Establishment insider, an enemy to the U.S. Constitution, and a danger to our Republic.


The first red flag that stood out to me when I began reading up on Judge Kavanaugh was his horrendous grasp on the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Kavanaugh has openly sided with the government’s violations of our privacy. In fact, he has supported and upheld the NSA’s warrantless domestic spying program, astonishingly calling it “entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” He has also supported random, warrantless police pat downs as legitimate.

This point of view regarding this precious amendment is incredibly serious for several reasons. First, it shows that Kavanaugh has no historical understanding regarding the purpose and importance of the Fourth Amendment. The Founding Fathers often referred to the Fourth Amendment as the “bulwark” of the Constitution and of our Liberty. Second, this stance shows Kavanaugh does not comprehend the rights of privacy and person inherent in the Constitution and protected by the Fourth Amendment. And third, it demonstrates that Kavanaugh is not a true constitutionalist. Only real constitutionalists deserve a place on the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court7

I prize the Fourth Amendment so highly that I would reject Judge Kavanaugh solely based on his stance regarding it. However, the more I looked, the more problems I saw with Kavanaugh. One of the things that worries me is his deep connections to corrupt families and personalities in Washington, D.C. Kavanaugh is a huge friend of George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, for instance. Kavanaugh was on the legal team that helped swing things in Florida in favor of George W. during the infamous recounts. He later served as an aide to George W. Bush in the White House. Kavanaugh was in fact so close to Bush that he not only married one of the president’s secretaries, but was instrumental in convincing George W. to nominate John Roberts to the Supreme Court – a decision which has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. Every indication is that Kavanaugh is an active Establishment insider – part of the “swamp” Trump has failed so miserably at draining.

Another area of concern is abortion. A Vox article included this statement:

“But as Trump has considered Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy, some conservatives have started to voice concerns that the judge isn’t reliably conservative enough. Some conservatives, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), have pointed to Kavanaugh’s record on health care; others are concerned that Kavanaugh told senators during his DC Circuit confirmation hearing that he’d respect precedent on abortion and declined to share his views on Roe v. Wade.”


We do not need a “go-along-to-get-along” guy on the Supreme Court. We do not need someone who will “respect precedent” when that precedent is clearly immoral, unconscionable, and wrong. Abortion is little more than infanticide – a genocide of the unborn. Instead of putting forward a man who respects the Constitution’s guarantee of a person’s right to live and who is uncompromising on this crucial life-or-death subject, Trump has given us a man who is seemingly content to see “precedent” continue and not rock the boat. I remind the reader that over 70 million babies have had their lives snuffed out since Roe v. Wade. Tolerating this sort of reprehensible “precedent” reminds me of what Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia about slavery:

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”

In addition to these alarming views, it turns out that Kavanaugh has been involved in high-level cover-ups for a long time. I speak specifically of the Vince Foster case. While the world claims Vince Foster – a White House aide during Bill Clinton’s presidency – committed suicide, the cold, hard evidence suggests he was murdered. The man who wrote the report ignoring and covering up crucial evidence demonstrating foul play was none other than Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh was one of the lead investigators in this case and was privy to the evidence countering the official narrative.

Vince Foster3

This scandalous episode goes to show that when you rub shoulders with, and do favors for, powerful people like the Clintons and Bushes, you advance up the political ladder. And Kavanaugh is about to advance almost as high as one can go. I highly recommend listening to this hard-hitting interview about Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Vince Foster cover-up conducted by Cliff Kincaide at America’s Survival Inc.

It is also worth noting that Kavanaugh wrote an opinion that was later used by Justice Roberts as a judicial justification for keeping Obamacare. In a lengthy article last week titled “How Potential SCOTUS Pick Brett Kavanaugh Wrote A Roadmap For Saving Obamacare,” Christopher Jacobs explained:

“Even as he avoided a definitive ruling on the merits of the case [in 2011], Kavanaugh revealed himself as favorably disposed to the [individual] mandate. Worst of all, in so doing, he cultivated a theory that ultimately led Chief Justice John Roberts to uphold the mandate. . . .

“In Kavanaugh’s view, the mandate could fit “comfortably” within Congress’ constitutional powers [to tax]. . . .

“Conservatives might argue amongst themselves about which is worse: An unelected judge opining on how a mandate to purchase a product could meet constitutional muster, or that same unelected judge giving Congress instructions on how to ensure it will. . . .

“The gambit worked. Roberts ultimately relied upon that argument from Verilli by way of Kavanaugh to uphold the mandate as a constitutional exercise of the taxing power. That Kavanaugh, like Roberts, used the last few pages of his opinion to decry the “unprecedented” nature of a mandate upheld via the Commerce Clause power does not mitigate his favorable analysis of a mandate upheld via the Taxing Clause power.”

I leave you to read the rest of the article for yourself. Suffice it to say, Kavanaugh has wrested the U.S. Constitution, massively expanding the Founding Fathers’ original intent regarding the taxing power to allow the federal government to punish (i.e. tax) individuals for not accepting government-controlled health care. Doing so led the Supreme Court to uphold the alleged constitutionality of Obamacare in 2012.


In fairness, let me briefly mention a few areas in which Judge Kavanaugh seems to be good. When it comes to religious issues and protection of religious worship, he appears sound (though, frankly, I dispute the depth of one’s religious conviction when I know they are not vehemently opposed to Roe V. Wade). Regarding immigration, what I’ve read so far indicates that Kavanaugh’s track record is appropriate. On the ever-contested issue of firearms, it seems Kavanaugh is also pretty consistent.

These three areas show that Kavanaugh is not 100% compromised. However, as the concerns I’ve raised should demonstrate, there are many red flags that ought to disqualify Kavanuagh as a serious contender for the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, however, President Trump disagrees.


Ultimately, this terrible nomination is a result of Trump’s own egregious lack of constitutional understanding, his naiveté and overreliance on the advice of his corrupt aides, and his lack of understanding of conspiracy and intrigue. As I said clear back in 2016, Trump is a puppet who doesn’t know he’s a puppet.

I don’t necessarily believe Trump is malicious. However, he is a man who is being manipulated by the people he puts around him and places confidence in. As he has demonstrated time and time again, it is easy to flatter and trick Trump and talk him out of his opinions. And since he is always looking to “make deals,” he is willing to compromise hard-and-fast principles in favor of mainstream, populist, lets-not-rock-the-boat policies. Thus, picking Kavanaugh – a Bush lackey and Establishment insider – was just “good business.” And it was also a tragically missed opportunity to put a true constitutionalist on the Supreme Court.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong about Judge Brett Kavanaugh and that, assuming he makes it to the Supreme Court, he will issue opinions harmonious with the U.S. Constitution. However, I don’t think a 53-year-old judge who has been in the business for so many years will suddenly change his stripes. I predict, if his nomination is approved, that he will continue to rule against the Fourth Amendment and uphold Court “precedent” in numerous areas that conflict with the founding ideals that made America the greatest nation in world history.

Supreme Court6

I truly believe, from the preliminary research I’ve done, that Judge Kavanaugh presents a danger to the Republic. He is a threat precisely because he belongs to and serves the insider clique that dominates Washington. If Trump truly wants to “drain the swamp,” why did he nominate a man bred and groomed in the swamp to the highest court in the land? Perhaps only time will tell what is to become of Kavanaugh, but I recommend watching him like a hawk and holding him strictly accountable, as we ought to hold all public servants accountable for their fidelity (or lack thereof) to the U.S. Constitution.

Zack Strong,

July 10, 2018.